Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: slimserver on linkstation: CPU load

Expand Messages
  • Sasha
    I think that there was a bug in Softsqueeze-2.0beta9 that devoured all linkstation s resources. (That version of Softsqueeze is available though the web
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that there was a bug in Softsqueeze-2.0beta9 that devoured all
      linkstation's resources. (That version of Softsqueeze is available
      though the web interface to slimserver). I downloaded
      Softsqueeze-2.0beta11 at
      https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=105169 and this
      version works perfectly. Now CPU load on linkstation during playback
      of FLAC files is about %10 and for MP3 files it is less.

      I am happy with the way how it works now. It searches though 643
      albums with 9688 songs by 788 artists quite quickly.




      --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, "haberschnasel"
      <haberschnasel@y...> wrote:
      > --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, "Sasha" <sashapost@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > If I connect to slimserver using SoftSqueeze, then slimserver.pl uses
      > > 97% to 99% of CPU when I listen to music, which is not very good. On
      > > the other hand, when I stream music to Winamp and use slimserver web
      > > inteface, CPU load is 5% to 10%, which seems to be a reasonable
      > > number. (I am checking these numbers using "top" command.) Also when
      > > I listen to internet radio through SoftSqueeze, CPU load is about 6%.
      >
      > Internet-Radio ist just a forward of an MP3-stream. With Winamp,
      > pretty much the same seems to happen. You have MP3's on your HD, I
      > suppose? Maybe for Softsqueeze some transcoding is necessary. Try to
      > stream some CBR files or lower bitrates to check this. Also,
      > Squeezebox can play other formats natively. You could try streaming
      > them as well. But in any case the CPU power that SoftSqueeze needs is
      > the same as what Squeezebox needs, for it emulates the interface.
      > Let us know if you find a reason for these differences in CPU load. I
      > am thinking of buying a Squeezebox as well - if it works.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.